Flock Camera Misidentification, the Tate Extradition & the Lindsay Clancy Trial | The Particulars Ep. 8

Headlines end. The details begin. In Episode 8 of The Particulars, Lacey and Nic walk this week's most talked-about cases with a different lens — a private investigator and law student alongside a former federal agent.

Tonight we launch a new recurring segment: a trial watch following the Lindsay Clancy case as it proceeds. We're not doing gavel-to-gavel coverage — we're staying at the level of legal facts and standards, walking through the charges, the indictment, what's actually on trial this week, and where jury selection stands.

Also on tonight's docket: a Guatemalan national detained after a Flock Safety camera flagged his vehicle — reported by two outlets as a mistaken identification, and what that says about automated license plate readers; how geofence warrants and Fourth Amendment doctrine apply to location data; a follow-up on the Nolan Wells case and what an autopsy can and can't establish; a grand jury development out of Vinton County; the Tate brothers' arrest and the extradition question; and a wave of Flock contract cancellations driven by public feedback and Fourth Amendment concerns.

Everything in this episode was fact-checked and verified before air. Where we couldn't independently verify something, we say so.

OUR OPINION. OUR ANALYSIS. NOT LEGAL ADVICE. Everything here is our commentary and opinion, based on the public record — not legal advice, and not an active investigation. Accused/alleged throughout; charged is not convicted; ongoing trials are covered as ongoing.

⚖️ New episodes Monday / Wednesday / Friday, 9 PM ET — live on TikTok, replay on YouTube.

Chapters
00:00 Intro & New Segment Announcement
02:33 The Clancy Trial Watch: What We're Doing
02:57 Ko-fi, Merch & Housekeeping
05:15 Paul Pelosi: Charges Filed
06:14 Flock Camera Misidentification: The Pascual Juan Case
08:48 Geofence Warrants & the Fourth Amendment
23:31 Trial Watch Format & Schedule
27:00 Nolan Wells: The Second Independent Autopsy
35:38 Vinton County: Grand Jury Development
42:05 The Tate Brothers: Arrest & UK Extradition
49:40 Flock Contract Cancellations
54:41 Arraignment Watch
01:10:41 The Clancy Case: Charges & Timeline
01:13:09 Lack of Criminal Responsibility Explained
01:14:21 The Indictment & Three Counts
01:37:10 Voir Dire: How Jury Selection Works
02:00:04 Close & Sign-Off

Transcript

SPEAKER_02 0:00

So happy Wednesday. Welcome back to the particulars. I'm Lacey.

SPEAKER_01 0:03

And I'm Nick.

SPEAKER_02 0:05

And a quick reminder before we get into anything, everything you hear from us tonight is our opinion and our analysis based on the public record. It is not legal advice, and where a case is still working its way through the system, the presumption of innocence applies. Full stop every time. One more thing, every episode, everything you're about to hear was fact-checked and verified as of 5 30 p.m. Eastern this afternoon. If something changed after that cutoff, we didn't know about it when we built tonight's show. That's how live news works. So I will go ahead and with some of the teasers. Anybody have any idea? If you saw tonight's graphic, you should have some ideas about what we're covering. But does anybody have anything in the chat? Anybody have any questions, things they want us to talk about?

SPEAKER_01 0:53

Thank you for the heart, Amy.

SPEAKER_02 0:56

We are going to take, oh, thank you. We are going, yeah. We're going to cover, and it's I I told Nick we actually went to dinner. Sorry, I touched my microphone. I heard it. I'm not used to having that there. Um, we went to dinner tonight, and I kind of told him that I was introducing a new segment tonight on the live, and he was like, You're killing me, Smalls. But it won't be bad. It is gonna be, it's gonna be, I don't want to say exciting. That makes it sound horrible. But there is a case that is just starting in the judicial system, so to speak. So, as you can probably guess, it is the Lindsay Clancy murder trial, and it's going on right now in Plymouth County. And what we're gonna be doing throughout the course of her trial is we will cover that trial every Monday, Monday, Wednesday, Friday at nine. When we do it, she will have her own segment built into the particulars so you will be able to see and have a more layperson understanding of what's going on in her trial as it unfolds live. If you are wanting to watch the trial or anything like that in particular, we're not gonna do that. We're just gonna kind of give you the recaps and give our I don't even want to say analysis, but how we do all of our other cases. We're gonna try to explain things. So if there's something that happens, or an expert witness, or you know, something like that during the case, we'll be able to explain that. And this is, I think, gonna be very beneficial because you'll be able to follow along as the case progresses. So that is our new segment. Um, we will also be talking about criminal responsibility, and we also have some very exciting news. You don't look excited.

SPEAKER_01 2:50

I'm pregnant.

SPEAKER_02 2:53

No, um, no, I guess it is me still. So we do have our Kofi set up and we did have our first donation.

SPEAKER_03 3:02

Yeah.

SPEAKER_02 3:03

So thank you, Amy, for our first donation. And we do have now my notes say two stickers, but I went ahead and I I raised the bar a little bit more for all of our viewers and our listeners. We have a t-shirt live in our sticker mule store, specially designed for all of our wonderful fans. So if you want a t-shirt, if you want to donate, uh, if you want to do any of those things, I do have my link tree set up. You can find it all from there. So we give the people what they want, right? So, quick bridge on some open threads. I spent a lot of time today going through um all the cases that we have covered, our topics that we have covered since our first episode of the particulars. And I tried to look at um, then I went through every live stream that we've done and I tried to see where have we yeah, it merch is gonna be difficult. I mean, for me to do because it took me quite a long time to design that shirt and get it pushed out, but it'll be good once it's up and running. So sorry. Um keep going. That's so distracting.

SPEAKER_01 4:20

Don't look at it.

SPEAKER_02 4:22

Um I oh my brain, there's too much going on. Okay, sorry. So um I went back through all the cases and the lives, and I tried to track what we have covered, what we've done updates with, and things like that. So tonight I will tell you forewarn, I'm gonna try to do give you any updates that I've been able to find before we pressed like live. Okay, so here we go. Let's get into it. Um, there really hasn't been anything material-wise that's a full segment. And when I say a full segment, that's like in regards to our um Lindsay Clancy case that is getting its own full segment every time we go through. So when I say it didn't get a full segment, it's just me right now giving you the rundown. Okay, so um, I talked about the 530. So, really quick, Paul Pelosi, the hit and run. Uh, we talked about that back in episode one. Um, the Napa County DA's office filed charges Friday, July 17th, a misdemeanor hit and run, leaving the scene of an accident, which was tied to his July 3rd crash in Yuntenville. We already reported that. Um, but he previously pled guilty to a DUI in 2022. So staying strictly on the legal facts here, there's a lot that's kind of being pushed out right now. Um, and more so the political side of that. That's that one. All right, and now we are going to go into one. And since I've been talking this entire time, I'm gonna s say Nick's gonna cover this because I want to see his reaction to this, and I'll actually turn it over for you.

SPEAKER_01 6:11

Thank you.

SPEAKER_02 6:12

There you go.

SPEAKER_01 6:13

Alright, so we're talking about accuracy. Um, we have Paul Juan Pascal uh or Pascal Juan case, that's what it is. A Guatemalan national named Martin Pascual Juan, who's lived in Seymour, Indiana since entering the U.S. as an unaccompanied minor in 2018. He was pulled over by North North Vernon Police in May after a flock safety camera flagged his vehicle as belonging to someone with suspended license.

SPEAKER_02 6:50

So it's worth stating that there are two outlets reporting this, the Seymour Tribune and the Republic, both call this a mistaken identification by police. We don't have the underlying probable cause affidavit ourselves, so I'm not able to um fact-check that, okay? Um, I attempted to verify with court records um the names that I was pulling, I was unable because there was a lot of mismatches in regard to names. So we're connecting that record to the story loosely. We're mainly basing this kind of off of the initial reporting. But I wanted to talk about this case because it is a flock camera case, and what's interesting is if you do any of your own research or go to you know, any any web search, you will be able to see a lot of the cases that are flock cases coming up. So I thought this was very interesting. Um, so the U.S. District Judge Matthew Brookman, South Southern District of Indiana, Terre Hot Division, ordered ICE to give him a bond hearing or release him, finding he'd been denied a hearing required under section 1226 of the Immigration and Nationality Act. The government argued he fell under a stricter no bond hearing provision that usually applies to people detained at the border. The judge disagreed. He's lived here for years, this isn't a border case.

SPEAKER_01 8:15

So this is at least the seventh time since December a federal judge in this district has ruled the same way in a similar case. That's a pattern of the courts pushing back on how these detentions are handled. It's not just one outlier judge.

SPEAKER_02 8:35

No, it you're seeing a consistent pattern. So um the legal commentary this week tied the Supreme Court Shautri versus United States ruling, which we covered back in episode two, directly to Flock. The court held that police collecting Google location history through a geofense warrant counted as a Fourth Amendment search because Americans have a reasonable expectation of privacy in records of their movements. That reasoning is now in play in Schmidt v. City of Norfolk, a case in the Fourth Circuit challenging Flock cameras directly. The district court ruled against the privacy claim back in February before Shawtree came down. So the appellate court now has to weigh in with the Supreme Court's language in hand. Our commentary on this particularly is an opinion like we have our own view on Flock. The thing that's interesting to me is the amount of traction, I guess is the word we use, the amount of traction it is getting across all the platforms. And and it is not just social media based, it's not just news based.

SPEAKER_01 9:41

You are seeing this in actual court cases and even and it's just so frustrating to me that people are like, oh, you you can't do that. You can't watch me drive down the street. The cops sit there and watch you do it when they're sitting in their cruiser. How is it any different? All it is is it's a tool for the police force.

SPEAKER_02 10:04

Okay, so I will say, Amy, I'm gonna try to answer this question gently. Okay, so a a business is in a lot of ways for general purposes, a private owned.

SPEAKER_01 10:22

They're not they're not affiliated with the government. They're not, they're not, they don't enforce law, they don't enforce legislation, they're not a part of a city government or anything like that. So therefore, they don't fall under the rules that the government does as far as rights violations. So uh a private company cannot violate your rights. And in regard to as well, when we take this to Flock, these cameras are not um the majority, well, with this, now there are some cities that have their own camera systems, but the majority of these, which are the license plate readers, those cities are part of the city, which is part of city government, which is subject to is that the flock cameras are contracted through a specific private company. And if they're utilized, if they're utilized as a tool by the government, they fall under the statutes of the constitution.

SPEAKER_02 11:20

No, it's there's there's but well, in regard to the question, in regard to it being like, how is it different than a convenience store or a mall or something like that? That's kind of the difference. Yeah, um, but again, if we think about the fact that the majority of the citizens in our world right now have a ring camera or blink camera on their door, and you pass by it how many times a day, it's picking that up.

SPEAKER_01 11:45

Okay, I'm gonna settle this with Flock and then we can move on. Well, we're always gonna have to cover Flock because it's it's I know that it's prevalent, it's relevant, but for to our viewers and all seven of you right now, thank you for being here.

SPEAKER_02 11:57

Yes.

SPEAKER_01 11:58

Look at it this way. This is the simplest way to put it, period. Just like Amy said, how is it, you know, how is it different than a security camera at a store? Okay. It's not. Honestly. It's hard to hear me, yeah, because this mic doesn't work. I I will speak louder.

SPEAKER_02 12:16

Why do you keep pulling it away if it doesn't work?

SPEAKER_01 12:18

We're using those on TikTok. These and this one's not working. It hasn't worked forever. So I don't know. Anyways.

SPEAKER_02 12:28

We want mine, I talk louder.

SPEAKER_01 12:31

You're fine. Here's the deal.

SPEAKER_02 12:34

Struggle bus.

SPEAKER_01 12:35

No, it's it's not. Here's the deal with flock. Okay. A kid walks into a convenience store, right? Has a gun. Another guy, an adult, walks into a convenience store, has a gun. They don't know each other are there for the same reason, but the kid wants to rob the store, and the guy wants to rob the store. The adult. While the adult winds up shooting so-and-so, the cashier. Okay? Just follow me.

SPEAKER_02 13:11

I'm trying.

SPEAKER_01 13:13

The kid hides. The adult runs, the cops show up, they find the kid, they find the dead cashier, the kid has a gun, they arrest the kid. Now, there's video evidence that shows the kid didn't shoot the guy, the adult did. That is private security. At the time, it's not evidence. Only up until the police or a government agency seizes that recording does it become evidence and property of a government agency. Therefore, it is subject to the rules of the constitution at that point. And because it is a recording, it has to follow the rules of the constitution. And the fact that the government now obtained that doesn't matter if it needed a warrant or anything, they have that now. So when you look at it that way, now does the man who actually shot the person, the cashier, who left and fled the scene and was not caught, when he's caught later because of video evidence that exonerates the kid and implicates the adult, when you use that, is that a violation of his rights? Because you had originally arrested this kid and charged him, but now you're charging me because there's new information that you gained. Well, did you have a reasonable expectation of privacy being in that store? No, you didn't. Therefore, with a flock camera, do you have a reasonable expectation of privacy of driving on a public road? No, you don't. It's a tool that law enforcement uses to help fight crime, to find criminals. Therefore, if you are not committing a crime, why are you worried about flock cameras?

SPEAKER_02 15:29

I'm just saying.

SPEAKER_01 15:30

If that's the case, if that's the case, you wouldn't walk into any store that has a surveillance camera. Yeah, you wouldn't. Because the government could come in and seize it.

SPEAKER_02 15:39

It's a public they can't there has to be Do you know how easy it is?

SPEAKER_01 15:43

You know how easy it is to write search warrants to get them approved by a judge.

SPEAKER_02 15:49

Mine now. That's not how it works. There is law behind it. There is, yeah, that does protect you, so to speak. But in theory, the bottom line here is if you are following the law, yeah, it really shouldn't matter.

SPEAKER_03 16:03

Right.

SPEAKER_02 16:04

And quite honestly, considering, to me, my opinion, my opinion on the whole thing is we live in a world where literally we can watch people, they literally set up a camera to have people watch their dogs on TikTok live all day. You don't have privacy. I'm sorry. If you are inviting the world into your life through, you know, your Instagram, your your TikTok, your Facebook, your all these things. Yeah, I mean, what what's I don't get it? Like what I in my head, I'm like, okay, now if you come to my home and you want to like search my home or something like that, I think that is different. That's different in my head. But in in the public, like Walmart or any of those stores that you go into, I don't expect it to be private. Like I always consider that's public. That's why I try not to go out in the public because it's the public, it's too publicly out there. I prefer my homework, my space.

SPEAKER_01 17:00

But in a nutshell, that's f that's flock cameras. All it is, it's a private agency that's out there putting up cameras out in public.

SPEAKER_02 17:08

And I will say that I think that it was done in the best of intentions, genuinely, in true our society, anyone can take something that is done with the best of intentions and they turn it in to something completely opposite. And everybody always wants to look at the negative downside instead of potentially like you know, we talk about missing person cases a lot. And my my opinion in this kind of situation, I think the more cameras that we have, the better. Because then, you know, it's not just oh, well, so and so said they saw this person here. No, we can verify that. Yep. So that to my thing, I would rather have cameras.

SPEAKER_01 17:50

Just like with Lacey Peterson, so-and-so saw her walking her dog. Yeah, I mean, like I Maybe if we had flock cameras, they would have verified that.

SPEAKER_02 17:58

I'm just saying that is to me, that is a yes, and then there's a whole other aspect down there where people are like, well, AI, you can alter it.

SPEAKER_01 18:05

Well, yeah, you can, but then you're committing you're trying to be facetious and there's no winning, no, I feel like, in the majority of situations. No, not what the space society is.

SPEAKER_02 18:18

Yeah. So, and we do, we have, we've actually have, so they there was, and I am not gonna quote it, I'm not gonna pull it because I don't have it off top, like, you know, like right here in front of me. There was some cases, and I think it was I don't know if it was Google, I think it was Ring. They were having some really because um law enforcement was trying to get and obtain ring footage without going through the person. They were trying to like go through ring itself, and it has to go through the person that now it is on ring's servers, so to speak, but they still have to because it is my footage, my camera has to go through me. That's some of the some of the way. So I get it. There's legit reasons and concerns that people have. So I understand that the concerns are out there. I did briefly touch on that. It comes down to, in my personal opinion, integrity, morals, values, honesty, like accountability. Those are the things like it doesn't really matter. It's it's the bad apple principle, right? In my head, there's always going to be a bad apple. I am not, you will very rarely ever catch me saying, like, all all law enforcement this or all attorneys that, because I don't think that you can lump a whole classification or group of people together and it be a true um, sorry, my brain, a true, a true classification. Because there's always you, yeah, like you can't worry about I can't. There it's too much, and it's just like uh there are good cops, there are bad cops. There are good attorneys, bad attorneys, good doctors, bad doctors. That's with every profession, right? So what we tend to do though in our news is we pick up the horrible people and we put them on the news for the world to see. So then the world only gets to see the negative. So what you're seeing in a lot of your news reporting in regard to flock cameras is the misuse of them. You are not seeing where I haven't pulled that, I'm sorry, but you're not seeing on the news every night the good. You're not seeing where it has helped do this or helped do that because that doesn't really, it's the same thing with your algorithm right now. That's why we're doing what we're doing with the two different recording setups because we're trying to reach people.

SPEAKER_00 20:41

Yep.

SPEAKER_02 20:42

That's exactly what the news is doing, it just does it in a little bit different way.

SPEAKER_01 20:48

We're just trying to portray what is not known out there, or some some of the things that are we feel are important to be known and say, hey, you know, look at this. Take another look at this.

SPEAKER_02 21:03

I don't want people to just think that we're bad mouthing every news, every because it's not. Um I do think there are some that hold themselves to a higher standard of reporting. Um, but I also think that I don't even like that. Is just one of those things I've always been like that. I don't take what you tell me, and you're like, okay, great, that's awesome. I'm gonna go and share that with the world. No, I'm gonna go and look at four different things to verify what you said because I want to know well, is that really true, or is there more to that story? It's the same, it's a it's a telephone thing. We've we've talked about that.

SPEAKER_01 21:45

Matt, you talk about worrying about data centers. It's funny. Data centers data centers have been going up around the country for about six years. Started, yeah, it's started. Started right at around 2020.

SPEAKER_02 22:02

Imagine that.

SPEAKER_01 22:02

When data centers started popping up.

SPEAKER_02 22:04

We were all locked in our houses.

SPEAKER_01 22:05

But nobody said shit about them until the news started having a problem with it. Or people started having a problem with it and wanted to bring it to the news. Now, oh, it's in the news. So I have now I'm worried about it. Right. The uh data centers have been popping up since 2020, since COVID. The that was the real start of the AI boom. Um just saying, we'll move on. But I just wanted to I wanted to mention that because it's very relevant to you know what we're talking about right now.

SPEAKER_02 22:40

Yeah. Well, and you know, if tonight is the first time that you are catching um the Casewalker Chronicles, the particulars, we are on all platforms, and our replays are on YouTube. And I will say that as I was looking through today, we touched that at the beginning of our stream. Today I went back through kind of again matching case to whatever, and there was like 20 some cases that we've already talked about because we're live every Monday, Wednesday, Friday on TikTok at 9 p.m. Eastern, and we have covered a lot, and there's there's a lot of casework that's out there. Um, so I want people to know that if you missed it, I would try to urge you to catch up on the replays. Um, and again, hit that follow button. We greatly appreciate it. And in terms of our newest segment, the trial watch, which it won't just be my hope, it won't just be the the Lindsay Clancy case. I'm hoping that once her trial has you know concluded, a new trial would take its place, so that then we'll be able to build kind of like a catalog, and you can compare and contrast cases within different jurisdictions and things like that. Um, and that the manner of cases, it's it's all a catalog process. So we're it's a it's a work in progress. We're glad you're here. We hope you keep you know coming back.

SPEAKER_01 24:08

Um following up with a previous episode, we spoke about Nolan Wells.

SPEAKER_02 24:14

This one's big. Are you ready? You sure you're gonna be able to do that? We're starting it.

SPEAKER_01 24:16

Let's go, let's do it. So we're we talked about Nolan Wells down in Mississippi.

SPEAKER_02 24:21

The recap.

SPEAKER_01 24:22

Right. He's he was an 18-year-old, went missing on the 4th of July after a boat trip to Horn Island in Mississippi. His body was recovered two days later on July 6th. Today we got the first real medical detail since then.

SPEAKER_02 24:38

And before we go into it, a couple things. When we uh when we were discussing this case, we did talk about jurisdiction in regard to this case. Um, if you missed that episode, again, I urge you to go back and watch it. But on that note, before we jump into the the meat and potatoes of this segment, does anyone have any questions that they want to throw out about this?

SPEAKER_01 25:04

Why don't we cover it first?

SPEAKER_02 25:06

I I just I kind of want to know what people's intake is so far. Like, what are they seeing? What is what has been your your um what are you seeing? Because I know what I see on mine. I want to know what you're seeing in regard to this. And I'll wait because I know everything's a little delayed. I just like using the little buttons.

SPEAKER_01 25:32

They can't hear it.

SPEAKER_03 25:33

Oh, they can't hear it.

SPEAKER_02 25:35

Oh man, sorry, there were crickets. Uh okay.

SPEAKER_01 25:42

Well eventually.

SPEAKER_02 25:45

I think they will eventually, yes. Especially if they if this ever goes to like a trial thing, yes, they would at that point, and it would it would be in the trial, but no, not just like like what are you seeing? Like, what do you see in your feeds? Because I know what my stuff is showing me, but again, I'm also going to um county uh public court systems, and I am actually looking or I am looking up cases and I am pulling the docket for cases, so I know what my stuff is sending me. I just want what you know people that aren't doing that. What does your news feed look like? For a minute. Are you back? He's back. I'm gonna wait. Give me some thumbs up, like an actual emoji. I'm old school. Give me an emoji in the chat if we're ready to get down to this. And I will tell you that I'm gonna tell you where you can go to get specifics after we yeah, yeah, it it's yeah. All right, well, here we go. A second independent autopsy was performed July 10th by Dr. Roger Mitchell of RAM Consulting LLC, board-certified forensic pathologist, former chief medical examiner for Washington, D.C. from 2014 to 2021. The exam was paid for by Colin Kaepernick. Mitchell's signed written report is dated July 19th, addressed directly to the Crump law firm, and the findings were made public today.

SPEAKER_01 27:30

Do you know who Colin Kaepernick is?

SPEAKER_02 27:32

Wasn't he some kind of sports person?

SPEAKER_01 27:34

Yeah. Oh rich ass NFL player.

SPEAKER_02 27:39

That's irrelevant to the segment.

SPEAKER_01 27:43

Oh, we're not going to talk about the NAACP today? No. Oh, okay. My bad.

SPEAKER_02 27:49

You're just read what I tell you to read.

SPEAKER_01 27:51

Well, the bottom line stated plainly in the report: cause of death, undetermined, pending investigation. Manner of death, undetermined, pending investigation.

SPEAKER_02 28:01

Because the body showed marked decomposition, Mitchell performed additional dissections the first autopsy hadn't done. Face, posterior head, and neck, ribs, pelvis, back, arms, legs, specifically to rule out blunt force injury. Result, no fractures, no deep tissue injuries found anywhere on the body. Now, one exception, dissecting the back of the head, Mitchell found a 12 by 8 inch area of red discoloration in the soft tissue over the occipital bone, the base of the skull. No skin laceration, no skull fracture. His own report calls this inconclusive for paramortal injury. Due to both the decomposition and the absence of any associated injury, but significant enough to flag for further investigation. That's the report's own language. Inconclusive, not a finding of trauma. Sent with the body to second. No, no, but you gotta be specific.

SPEAKER_01 29:21

You're gonna let me know. You can't put your opinion in this part.

SPEAKER_02 29:26

Go ahead.

SPEAKER_01 29:27

They weren't with the second examination.

SPEAKER_02 29:30

Just have a drink.

SPEAKER_01 29:31

Thank you. Mitchell says retaining those structures after a first autopsy is common practice, just like the organs that were not there with the body or the brain. Because that was all held with the first to do toxicology and the gastroetymology, all of that. Um he doesn't know why the back portion of the occipital bone and things like that weren't examined as well in that report. But without them, he says the neck exam from the back only is complete. Incomplete. Uh he can't rule out neck injury because he doesn't have the front portion. So the examiner with the second autopsy.

SPEAKER_02 30:25

So Mitchell also couldn't examine, obviously, the airway, lungs, or stomach contents since those organs had been processed by the first autopsy. The second exam did not include toxicology, and histology samples have been submitted, but results aren't back yet. Both are still pending. One unrelated finding for the record: a remote healed scar on the left ankle, old and not connected to the cause of death. So the report lists seven specific open questions before a real cause of death can be determined. How Wells entered the wadi uh water, sorry, his body position when found, whether there was water in the airway, evidence of neck injury, evidence of intracranial hemorrhage, stomach contents, and the toxicology results. Direct quote from the report this pathologist cannot rule out if any intervening non-accidental factors contributed to or caused the death. So that is not a founding of foul play. It's the pathologist saying the evidence in front of him doesn't let him rule it out. A different, narrower statement, and we want to be precise about that.

SPEAKER_01 31:28

So Amy, you're exactly right. I was thinking the same thing when I read the second autopsy report. 12 by 8 inches on on the back of the neck and head. That is massive. That is the entire side-to-side profile of the head and all the way down from the you know center of the skull to the to your middle back for an 18-year-old, unless this kid is like seven foot tall, which I don't think he is. I thought the same thing in my head. I didn't say anything, but I'm like, man, that's weird. 12 by 8 inch area. That's huge.

SPEAKER_02 32:04

I will say that. So I will finish with this. The official Mississippi State Medical Examiner's autopsy is still not released, still waiting on toxicology. So we're not asking you to take our word for any of this. The full preliminary report signed by Dr. Mitchell is posted publicly at bencrump.com. Go read it for yourself. And what I'm going to tell you is that I read it and then I read it to Nick, and then Nick and I discussed it. And what I will say is that we had our own questions, and when I posed my possible theories or um summaries in regard.

SPEAKER_01 32:48

Yeah.

SPEAKER_02 32:49

So he literally goes, huh, and turned away and walked away.

SPEAKER_01 32:52

No, I said, no.

SPEAKER_02 32:54

What'd you say?

SPEAKER_01 32:55

That's not what I said.

SPEAKER_02 32:56

Yeah, I know. He had him and I have a little bit different. You will see that we have some very different views on some things.

SPEAKER_01 33:03

Um she's coming around.

SPEAKER_02 33:10

I say you're coming around to my my way of thinking. That's where you need your crickets. Alright. So that is that. That is as clear as mud. I will say there was a press conference today that was held by the NAACP. That is on YouTube as well.

SPEAKER_01 33:34

Don't go listen to it.

SPEAKER_02 33:37

I would strongly tell you to read. I see, I agree. I am always right. I would I would tell you to read their report for yourself. Then you could watch the press conference. I what you will notice with me is I am not devoid of emotion, but for me, I like to look at the science and the facts of things rather than get someone's uh I wasn't gonna say bias, but I I everyone has a bias. I understand that. That's why I choose to operate largely with documents because it's yes, they can be written, but especially when it comes to medical things, it's a little bit harder to put a bias in there. I'm just saying. Do you want mine?

SPEAKER_00 34:27

No. Okay.

SPEAKER_02 34:30

So hopefully that that helps. Does anybody have any other questions about that? That was a huge um, a huge chunk, huge development. Yeah. Um, so I I felt like we had to cover it. I feel like there's a lot of coverage on it, but I wanted to kind of put it out there that it is available for you to read yourself. So before you start looking and seeing what everybody's saying about it, I would urge you to read it. And it that it that again was, I think it was at bencrump.com because Ben Crump is the attorney for the family. So that is my that is my take on that. Any questions? I love all the likes. You guys are so great with your hearts. Thank you for liking.

SPEAKER_01 35:23

Almost 14,000 likes. That's awesome.

SPEAKER_02 35:26

If you are just hopping in, give us a follow so you can stay up to date on all the things going on. All right, no questions. All right, so we are moving on to Vinton County. So this is gonna be just the quick status check for people that are just hopping in or haven't caught the previous episodes. This is the Siders family case. And remember, we discussed in previous episodes, they are all their own cases. So I, for purposes of I hate to say storytelling, but basically, yes, this is the 16 children case. Um, so two motions we've been watching remain undecided. So Christina Siders' request for a non-dissemination order and Elizabeth Siders' request to modify her $300,000 bond to recognition. No ruling on either as of tonight.

SPEAKER_01 36:22

Here's what did move. All four defendants waived their preliminary hearings back on July 7th. And that sends the case straight to a Venton County grand jury instead. Prosecutor William William Archer said on July 8th, he hoped to have indictment news in the next couple weeks. Well, that's kind of where we are right now, which means this could break literally any day now.

SPEAKER_02 36:50

I'm reading through my note. Thank you, Amy. So there's um some things floating around, and I will say, um, in regards to this case, again, right now, the four cases are able to be found on the public records court document page. So um I have that somewhere. It's in my other spreadsheet. But that I would there's some things uh specifically like separately, where Elizabeth married Gary at age 15, and there's stuff like that that's floating around. That really isn't anything to do with this case. So there are a lot of outlets out there that are picking up some of those older snippets of things, and it's kind of getting confused in with the current case. Cases, because they are separate, but that is all of that that I have. So one more open thread in regard to the Ciders family. Um, Gary Jr. faces a separate case for counts of public indecency, unrelated victims warrant issued the same day as the search. Several outlets suggested this is the same warrant that brought them to the house. Authorities haven't officially confirmed that connection. We're presenting it as outlets connecting dots, not as confirmed fact. So, yeah, there's a lot going on. And they, and again, what I I will briefly, I'll try to touch on this briefly. What I mean by that is when I go in and I do um like my public record searches, okay. So, like we have, I'll just use Indiana, that's an easy one. Um, Indiana My Case. I'm pretty sure everybody living in this state knows about Indiana My Case, okay? So you can go in there and you can literally do a simple search by the name. So you can put somebody's first name and last name in there, and it, if there is a some kind of record for them, it's gonna pull up whatever. Okay, there are statute of limitations as far as like if we look at driving stuff, that's a little bit different and how stuff is processed there. Um then we look at like underage juveniles, usually never listed unless they are tried as an adult. Um, again, there are different laws per each thing. So I'm just doing broad classifications. Each state's different, yeah, and each state is different, and each like you know, um the the court levels are different, and depending on how the case, like what court it is tried in, they have different things. So there was, and I don't remember which one I talked, I think it was last episode, and I told you guys that when I was just trying to get the case record from the docket, I had to pay $4.75 just to access it. I was like, this is and then I have some when I actually go to um some courts, they will charge you per page, and it's usually 10 cents per page. So if you um are accessing a PDF document on that case, which is could be a motion with exhibits or anything like that, easily it could be 500 pages, and so then they're charging you 50 bucks 50 bucks to pull this report, which is stupid because it's digital and they're not copying it.

SPEAKER_01 40:20

Yeah, it's they're getting the money back for putting the copies into digital format, yeah.

SPEAKER_02 40:26

That's and and housing the documents, the great thing about Indiana is it's all free. Yes, it is all free. However, they they are a little there's a delay in the the processing, it's not bad, it's not too bad, but it is there.

SPEAKER_01 40:41

Um it's usually there the next day.

SPEAKER_02 40:43

Yeah, so just saying, like when I say when I go and look for things, yes, there are some cases where if we look at a an W It all depends on the clerk, too, the county, yeah.

SPEAKER_01 40:53

Because I know with uh the county we live in specifically, the clerk, anything that we've processed with the court usually gets in the very next day.

SPEAKER_02 41:04

Anything that gets processed is usually the next day for the house and you've got holidays and you've got all the things don't take our word for it.

SPEAKER_01 41:13

That's just our case that we've been dealing with. Other counties may be different, they may have a bigger workload, and that information doesn't get into the system as quickly.

SPEAKER_02 41:23

So yeah, and I I do try to like I literally have bookmarks, so I will go in each day and I will go and I will do the search and I will look at the docket and see if anything is posted. If it has posted and the motion is available to download, I will download it, I will read it. All of those things.

SPEAKER_01 41:41

Um let's move on to top G. We're losing people.

SPEAKER_02 41:45

It is what it is.

SPEAKER_01 41:50

I said top G and somebody joined.

SPEAKER_02 41:51

Look, I cannot with you. I you know what? There are people that legitimately want to hear the method to my madness.

SPEAKER_01 41:59

Look, more people were joining because I said top G.

SPEAKER_02 42:02

This is not why. If you are joining just for this, I can't with you. So, anyways, the moment you've all been waiting for, obviously, the Tate brothers.

SPEAKER_01 42:10

Andrew Tate.

SPEAKER_02 42:12

Ain't nobody got time for that. All right, you take the whole segment then.

SPEAKER_01 42:16

I'll take it all. Andrew Tate and Tristan Tate arrested in Miami last weekend on a UK extradition warrant. So they're trying to get them extradited back to the UK for potential crimes, alleged crimes that they have committed. A senior Trump administrator or admission administration official told Axios directly, so take it for what you will, because we know how all those Trump claims are. The administration will not intervene to block extradition on the Tate Brothers. The U.S. has an extradition treaty with the UK, and the admin administration intends to honor it in this case as well. Under the Justice Department's own court filing, Secretary of State Marco Rubio has sole discretion to block extradition if he believes it's politically motivated. A senior State Department official has Rubio or says Rubio hasn't spoken to the Tates or their lawyers. See, we got more people joining. And that the state has no plans to act. The next hearing is Monday, July 27th. This coming Monday. Both brothers waived their attendance for it. So it'll just be their attorneys, obviously. Um, if you don't know by now, uh the Tate brothers are social media influencers at this point. They're pretty well known in the social media world, other than the fact that this one had no clue who they were.

SPEAKER_02 43:53

I don't know who they were.

SPEAKER_01 43:54

Which is not surprising because of who they influence. They are

SPEAKER_02 44:00

marketed towards young impressionable men I was gonna say I'm young and I'm impressionable men I'm not a man uh to help hone their minds into thinking a certain way I know that's not true I know that first of all okay that's absolutely terrible if that is the truth that's exactly what it is do they state that because I feel like that's a bit pretty big claim to state sir on a platform they have a their own university to get kids to pay tuition to learn how to be a T'es terrible people silent I'm that's that's my opinion they're they're absolutely horrible people and they have everything everything coming to them is deserved I'll just say that his opinion his analysis not legal advice also on the numbers UK authorities issued 38 new charges and Axios describes this as bringing the total combined counts to 59 it could be read as saying 59 is their total UK exposure when earlier it explicit 59 is new charges on top of the separate prior UK charges involving three alleged victims we have not independently verified the exact I'm giving thumbs up to Maddie we have not like I'm not going down a rabbit hole for this I'm sorry that even if it is even if it is 38 that is an astronomical amount of like legwork that I'm not saying it's not important but in my opinion Yeah let's just say it involves rape child sex trafficking uh child pornography all kinds of stuff that is pretty terrible Alex is on his way home I now those are all alleged yeah I anyways apples apples oranges whatever we're moving on if you genuinely want more Tate brothers content let me know I can cover it but I feel like I do want to say there is a political dimension to this and I don't like politics.

SPEAKER_01 46:24

I know we try not to cover politics the Tate's attorney is calling this political persecution and there's reporting that parts of the administration were caught off guard by the arrest we're sticking to the legal facts of the charges the claims um of what's been charged and we're staying out of the whole political side of looking at it so but I will say if we do follow up with this the political side of it is gonna come out with their case just saying oh Demi's having a nightmare she's joining the conversation so if you hear her she's having a dream over there all right moving on I'm glad I I'm glad I'm not going to Newport I just funny because you're like I don't want to hear any more about it and then yeah I I I I don't like the politics side of it.

SPEAKER_02 47:33

I really don't like it it it has no place in in like investigations and things like that in my opinion I'm sorry like it it's this is your job do your job whoever is the judge the mayor whatever shouldn't have any effect yeah that's my view that's how I look at it like I don't care who you go to church with I don't it doesn't matter to me like this is what you were supposed to do this is who you are this is the alleged crimes that you committed that's it there's no I I don't think there's that's why I try to keep politics separate and that's why I I just I don't I look at some cases and I try not to cover them because it's and I that sounds even worse but it's like it it's all like we touched on Pelosi right that was it we touched on I gave you the facts of the case the the and then we moved on like the there the whole thing that's in the news feeds is like this much the case and this much politics that surround the case and it's like no sorry well more about politics Newport Kentucky flock cameras laughing because you you wanted to be done with flock and then it's like oh it creeps back in yeah so quick follow-up on Newport Kentucky I was gonna say why did that change but I oh gosh hang on more technical issues no it's not it's just them saying that we're not active so we have to I'm part of their bullcrap to make sure you're not a bot yeah and that's the thing like I really try I don't want things to seem like I have a bias but again every single person has some sort of bias. I genuinely do try to look at things from all different aspects and that's why it became increasingly more obvious for me that I wanted to present something like this where I can say well this is what the actual case is you make your determination. Yeah flock cameras Newport Kentucky I said that so since we spent real time on flock cameras on uh tonight already uh multiple outlets confirm the city ended its flock pilot program on July 14th citing public feedback and fourth amendment concerns tied to the Shaw Tree ruling we just discussed but every single report on this as of tonight still describes the removal and future or announcement tents will remove or they are removing we do not have independent confirmation the cameras are physically down and the camera count itself is inconsistent across the sources one outlet says 17 cameras were originally placed another says only six were active at removal and another account says there were 18 again this is the whole point of the podcast and it's like depending on which which news story you see hear or read yeah but the facts have changed but the fact that they shut it down according to their reporting it was their their their community's feedback that they didn't want and I think that the bigger takeaway there is that they the city so to speak chose to limit the amount of possible outcomes in regard to legal battles they just said okay fine that's my take on it I mean because that's what in my opinion when the when the community comes to you and they say hey we don't want this we blah blah blah blah blah and they're willing to like put up a fight for it I that's my thing like I think that the the community it's gonna be unfortunate when it uh don't okay shut just shut your mouth so anyways moving on you can have this case oh Nancy Guthrie the the the other one that I hate gosh you see what she does to me first is your blood pressure raising yet no I got low blood pressure what's already been confirmed Derek Kalella the man who sent the false ransom note in the case has he's pleaded guilty on two federal felony accounts sentencing is set for September 10th before the U.S.

SPEAKER_01 51:53

Dis district judge John C. Hendraker Hendraker we're just gonna make up names for these people from now on there's five people watching so I they probably wouldn't know the difference if we made up names they'd be like oh yeah that sounds about second something new we love you all FBI director cash patel the party animal that he is told Fox News Digital that the four day delay before the FBI was allowed into their investigation may have cost crucial doorbell camera video. Hmm the footage that was ultimately recovered came from a cache a cache that was in his words on the verge of deletion with that video file.

SPEAKER_02 52:48

So Sheriff Nanos disputes part of this saying an FBI task force member though not a federal agent was present in the early stages this is a single outlet exclusive as of tonight not yet independently cooperated elsewhere so we're presenting it as reported not as settled fact oh cash patel being a party animal that's my opinion but yeah you go see for yourself. He's in a lot of a lot of news feeds across the country I'm just gonna say that he's he's got a lot going on right now. So that's five real updates in one segment this is exactly why we build the show this way follow along if tonight's the first time you're catching one of these I really strongly doubt that there is a person in the United States that doesn't know about some of this. And if they do you may not have access to the internet. They're not like us no so now we're moving on hello Kelly quick backstory Marley Kinney 19 of Ashland Kentucky disappeared June 24th while boating with a group of gr with a group at Grayson Lake in Carter County she reportedly left the rented pontoon to use the restroom and never returned after a multi-agency search using divers, sonar helicopters drones and cadaver dogs her body was recovered June 28th we pulled the actual docket ourselves the case is Commonwealth now I will say these are two separate cases before we go into it in in this because I am very specific about this. So the docket that I am able to pull is in regard to Cameron Conley and that is the Commonwealth versus Cameron P. Conley Carter District Court and I'm not going to give you the case number um Conley the operator of the boat is scheduled for arraignment today July 22nd at 9 a.m I pulled was not able to find a conclusion for that I will say that he was arrested for boating under the influence he was the one supposedly driving the pontoon that Marley and her friends were on. Now I will tell you that also there are some spelling inconsistencies across the national coverage in regard to this case and as of today the national coverage of this case is dwindling and it is very sparse. Yeah um so given our production cutoff we don't know the outcome of today's arraignment I looked again before it's not on there but what's still unresolved is Marley's cause and manner of death remain pending with the Kentucky State Medical Examiner's office in Frankfurt. So no update since her body was recovered June 28th that's now four weeks with no public finding and I will go ahead and push this and tie it all the way back to Nolan Wells this case with very minimal it had a lot of media coverage at the beginning but since then that has filtered off I will say that it has been four weeks and there is no real um update so no real findings or anything like that. So in Amy's question is it kind of normal the way that the Nolan Wells case is is going through the system I will say that I think the uh we got hats and mustaches I love it I missed it I I think that while one case is getting more attention than the other I think they're honestly moving at the same speed if we look at just what is being put out there. That's all I'm gonna say about that. Um this is a real case a real court date and we noted back in episode two that the voting under the influence charge against Conley and Marley's death remain legally separate facts. So no charge currently connects them we're not implying one it's just that that is how that came about so in terms of Connie's arrest and things like that it those two are connected in that manner but not anything else. Two separate cases um but it is a very real case it's a it's got a real real court date and it's gotten a fraction of the attention some other stories this month have that's not a knock on any of the other cases okay um I'm just saying that coverage volume isn't the same as legal substance.

SPEAKER_01 57:23

Alright Grayson okay another thing Grayson Lake is small Ashland Kentucky is small it's not gonna get huge coverage unless of course there's a big to-do about it where something is found that is extraordinary and is newsworthy.

SPEAKER_02 57:47

That's just how it that's just how it happened my opinion just saying I'm not going to tell you much more other than what I have said tonight. Yeah that's that's I just for two cases that were very and similar in the nature and and way the way things happen okay you have two groups of friends go out on two different voting days both of them had someone end up dead at the end of the excursion. Okay those in my head and maybe I'm thinking about that in the simplest terms but to me that's two very similar cases and if you look at what you see right now the black man's national news and the white girl's not I'll say it I don't care what I think we have tried to do is in in order not to be looked at one way we've over I don't even want to say overcompensated but news has instead of saying okay it's just I'm I'm just I was very upset I'll be honest with you I I got to the end of the press conference today and I was just upset because why I mean I in my head a case is a case a child is a child a uh a murder is a murder what's gonna what's gonna sell the news right now I'm I that's what it's always I know people are not gonna like they're not gonna like what you said and they're not gonna like what I had to say and I understand that and I get that and I'm not trying to make anything about race I'm just saying that these cases pretty much happened right about the same time and what have considering you look online and what have you observed what have you observed one has had no news updates in almost four weeks the other is the entire news feed is covered. Yep what sells the news well I'm just saying it's not equal it's not fair and there is no fair I understand that okay dad thank you actually the fair is next week but anyway all I'm saying is until we start treating all cases with the same legal and and um like investigative lens and honestly if we just kept the media out of it the world would be a little bit better that's just my opinion I know everyone's got one and I know everybody has different opinions and at the end of the day in my honest opinion you had two groups of friends two very young people that lost their lives whether it was an accident whether it was murder it doesn't matter they are both gone and they are not coming back. That cannot be undone so quite honestly what the world thinks about it really doesn't matter it's the investigations that are done and I understand that their view on this is that they're saying that that you know this specific case the investigation was botched or it didn't happen fast enough well I'm here to tell you friends that I still don't have any other information on Marley Kenny.

SPEAKER_01 1:00:59

No I'm sorry everybody probably is gonna be really upset about that comment and I can't wait for people to come at me in my YouTube comments bring it all I'm sorry I just think that and in terms of I mean do we have any idea like the case log that some some counties have if we're doing toxicology reports or if we're doing like you know all the all this backlog of rape kits that need to be tested the amount of work that needs to be done cannot keep up with the amount of crime that takes place in this country I I just that's I'm sorry I'll get off my soapbox I went down a rabbit hole I'm sorry no we're not sorry it is what it is it's we're trying to just bring the facts to light because we see we investigate these things we look at both sides of these things you know we see cases that we believe you know should be investigated thoroughly they all should and they all should be brought to the limelight yeah I think because because they're all important they're all somebody's child husband mother daughter and they're they're there's they're people there is a lot of cases out there where the investigation was not up to par and that is what I will say about that I am not trying to badmouth anyone because hindsight as Nick likes to say it's 2020 they taught they teach you that in in investigations plain and simple and yes we understand mistakes get made we're all humans we all make mistakes that's why you notice a lot of this automation starting to happen automatic plate readers you know ways of yeah it takes the human out of it taking the human out of it because we we all know that the justice system is flawed be based on the human element plain and simple well yeah because we've already talked about that we have bias and again like point point made with this now again people are probably gonna snip it and and pick different parts out of this live they can go ahead or they can go to YouTube and find the replay and find the actual talk about it.

SPEAKER_02 1:03:21

But what what that's the thing is if we are trying to in theory eliminate the human nature aspect of it and make things more autonomous then we can't be getting rid of the autonomy. Mm-hmm Newport wants to get rid of well then you know it may take them eight weeks to get results back. I don't know I don't I'm every every and then another another person could get murdered because of it. Yeah it it just there's no winning in any situation that's what I want people to understand. And yes you need to fix society before we try to fix the oh yeah it's a people we have a people problem bad it's a people problem I I fear because I mean it is it is what it is but anyways we are officially I I this is a whole new setup we've talked about that I'm sorry I'm not gonna keep saying it but if you're just jumping in you're just joining us I strongly suggest that you hit that follow button and you follow along because this is our brand new segment the trial watch and it will continue to evolve throughout this case and hopefully many that sounds bad hopefully many more in the future um it's the justice system we're wanting to last a while we're we're wanting to provide that in-depth look and looking at things from multiple different aspects angles whatever you want to call it um hello Ian Rhodes I hope everyone that is just joining us and just following us for the first time also knows that all of our live streams are on YouTube. Catch the replay they are not um sequential so to speak you can watch them however we do try to build upon and we do cover different cases roughly each episode we do have our sticker mule uh website where you can purchase our wonderful t shirt has anybody that follows and is a frequent has anybody checked it out yet have you got I haven't hinted at what the t-shirt is yet but I'm waiting for someone in the chat to tell me they've looked at it because I'm I made the shirt for my fellow followers that are my diehard fans I made the shirt for you guys um and we do have the the two new sick stickers as well and Mad Bark I don't know if you're on here you were at one point I do I haven't forgot about you I am gonna send you stickers I just haven't left my house to go to the post office.

SPEAKER_01 1:05:51

So segment two the trial watch with Lindsay Clancy and just to be completely fair

SPEAKER_02 1:06:00

Nick knows very, very little. You didn't see the t-shirt. I'm gonna have to look. I can see it on my end, but I I I thought I made it public. Anyone else if wants to chomp like hop over and see if they can find the shirt? Because if not, I'm gonna have to reach out to them. That'll be uh Maddie, it's in our um link tree.

SPEAKER_01 1:06:27

And our link tree should be on TikTok, it should be Instagram, all those should be in there.

SPEAKER_02 1:06:36

Every every platform's a little different, so that's why I do the link tree. Matt says he's like he can only see the stickers. Amy said she can see it now, so I don't know if maybe keep checking and let me know because I I can reach out to them. I don't know why. It was that like I said, it was there for me. I actually personally ordered one. Um and I'm supposed to get it, I think June 29th. So if I get it, it I'll definitely show it. Yeah, but it is on sticker mule. That was a hot mess for me to try to get that store fixed. So let me know feedback on that. But I did I did design the shirt.

SPEAKER_01 1:07:14

And he says click on July. Maybe.

SPEAKER_02 1:07:17

Or maybe did I say June? I maybe said June. I don't know what I don't even know what day it is. Like I know it's Wednesday. My stuff is revolves around.

SPEAKER_01 1:07:26

I will say podcasts. We we have felt this a lot. When you Maddie sees the shirt, perfect. When you quit your job, like your regular day job, nine to five, whatever you want to call it, that's Monday through Friday, and you start working from home and start trying to build your own business, you completely lose track of time.

SPEAKER_02 1:07:44

Time is just like non-existent. I don't know what day it is.

SPEAKER_01 1:07:47

We don't know what day it is, we don't know what time it is. Hey Tiffany Taylor. Oh my gosh, this is the first time I've seen her in our in our live. That's awesome.

SPEAKER_02 1:07:56

And yeah, we we are like up until two or three o'clock in the morning, and uh welcome, welcome. You are just in time for the main segment. Um, again, thank you for the likes, the shares, the follows. Again, we the main thing we're really pushing for is the follows, our follow count. I it's uh I will say Nick did a live stream fishing the other day. He got like 45 followers in that one live stream. That's what brought about this whole why we're doing the stream different today, because he just used his phone and was just him live.

SPEAKER_01 1:08:32

Quick disclaimer this live is a little bit different than normal. We don't have graphics, we don't have any of that. We're streaming directly from the TikTok app on the phone.

SPEAKER_03 1:08:41

Yes, this is a test.

SPEAKER_01 1:08:43

We're using two separate different mics. We're streaming, we're not streaming, we're recording from another camera that is going to be going to YouTube. So you will get the 16 by 9 version, which is like the normal screen version that we usually do over on YouTube if you've missed some of tonight's episode. Be sure to go to YouTube and check it out when I get it uploaded. It takes me some time because I have to edit it and I'll be up till two in the morning, three in the morning, but it doesn't matter because I have insomnia and I don't sleep anyway.

SPEAKER_02 1:09:10

And on that note, in the chat or in my DM or anywhere that we have a platform where you could leave a comment or anything like that, what would people think? Nick hasn't heard this yet. I thought about this the other night when I couldn't sleep. Should we put the particulars as its own kind of standalone on like Spotify, Apple so that you get the replay that way as well? Yeah, if you listen to podcasts on Spotify, it would be able to come through that way rather than having to go to YouTube or whatever. I'm just throwing that out there. It was a thought I had. It was like, in if we had that to our post-production, we can push that out to that, maybe. And if you're driving in your car, you'd be able to listen to it that way. So there is that possibility that we could go that rate.

SPEAKER_01 1:09:56

I just play YouTube video.

SPEAKER_02 1:09:57

I know, I'm just saying. I I'm just throwing out some ideas. This is what happens when we don't sleep. Because we clearly like we don't get up in the mornings anymore till like almost.

SPEAKER_00 1:10:05

Well, I get speak for yourself.

SPEAKER_02 1:10:07

I roll out like 10, 11.

SPEAKER_00 1:10:10

Yeah.

SPEAKER_02 1:10:11

If you're lucky, and I get my day started, and then I'm up to like three.

SPEAKER_01 1:10:15

Is that a yari that you know?

SPEAKER_02 1:10:17

Uh yeah, probably. I don't know very many yaris. I only know one.

SPEAKER_01 1:10:22

But, anyways, yeah, no, I was just saying when you quit your job, um time goes out the window.

SPEAKER_02 1:10:28

Yeah.

SPEAKER_01 1:10:28

So, all right, let's get to segment two. We like to talk about tangents, and we're not anymore. We're talking about Lindsay Clancy.

SPEAKER_02 1:10:36

So, before any legal analysis, here's the story plainly for anyone joining fresh. This one is a hard one, okay? We're going to stay at the level of legal facts and standards, which is our shoals show's whole approach anyway. It will not be the blow-by-blow detail because we only do Monday, Wednesday, Friday lives at 9 p.m. So it is obviously not going to be the trial watch where there's, you know, the person live streaming the trial as it's minute by minute. It's not going to be that. It's more of okay, when we come on Monday, we can give you a recap of what happened Monday. We'll give you the legal breakdown, that sort of thing. Um, then on Wednesday, we'll cover uh Tuesdays and Wednesdays. So that'll kind of be how that goes.

SPEAKER_01 1:11:22

Hey Tiffany, thank you for the follow.

SPEAKER_02 1:11:24

Thank you.

SPEAKER_01 1:11:24

You want me to do the first segment?

SPEAKER_02 1:11:26

Hi, you can do it. Yes. Okay.

SPEAKER_01 1:11:29

Because I don't know much about yes, he is coming in new. I we're gonna say hello to Yari. Hello, Yari. All right, so on this case, on the evening of January 24th, 2023, in Duxbury, Massachusetts, Lindsay Clancy, a labor and delivery nurse, is accused of killing her three young children. Cora five, Dawson, three, and Callen. Is it Callan? Callan, eight months old, while her husband Patrick was out of the home running an errand, she had asked him to run. Cora and Dawson died that day. Callan died days later from his injuries. Lindsay then cut her wrists and neck and jumped from a second floor window. She survived, but suffered traumatic spinal cord injuries and is now paralyzed below the sternum. Yes.

SPEAKER_02 1:12:31

So she was arraigned at Tewkesbury State Hospital on October 26th, 2023, and pleaded not guilty on all charges. That same day, the court committed her under General Laws Chapter 123, Section 18, for a period not to exceed six months. She's been held there since, transported to court in person for each day of this trial. Most recently, under a civil recommitment petition filed May 21 of 2025. So um that this is a pretrial civil commitment under Code 18, a different statute from the post-verdict 16 commitment referenced later in 2C, which would apply only if she's acquitted by reason of lack of criminal responsibility. Keep those two sections distinct, okay? Um, the present custody is not the hypothetical future outcome.

SPEAKER_01 1:13:19

Right. She has never disputed that she caused their deaths. The entire courtroom fight, the trial happening right now, is about her mental state, not what happened, why, and whether the law holds her criminally responsible for it.

SPEAKER_02 1:13:40

Yes.

SPEAKER_01 1:13:40

So I know that is gonna bring a lot of confusion right now if you don't know about this.

SPEAKER_02 1:13:46

Okay, so okay. So there's a lot going on. A lot.

SPEAKER_01 1:13:53

Amy asked if the last juror got selected.

SPEAKER_02 1:13:55

Yes, I believe all of them are seated. And I think um I think Vladir is done. Uh yeah, I think they are fully seated because I think I talked in here. I was following it.

SPEAKER_00 1:14:05

Let us we're gonna continue on.

SPEAKER_02 1:14:06

We're gonna keep going. If I don't answer that, get get back with me at the end as a post-follow-up question. But um, she was indicted. Did I say that? No, that was the other one. Okay, so as the charges, as they stand tonight, okay, so she, Lindsay Clancy, was indicted by a Plymouth County grand jury on September 15th, 2023, on three counts of murder under General Laws, Chapter 265, Section 1, one for each child, and three counts of strangulation or suffocation under chapter 265, section 15 DB. That is not the full picture of what she's on trial for starting this week. So on July 8th, 2026, less than two weeks before opening statements, prosecutors formally dropped all three strangulation counts through a filing called, and I'm gonna say this wrong because it's it's legal, but it I think it's a null prosecue. Um, or pro prosecue? I don't know. It's like Latin. It's Latin. I'm sorry, I it is what it is.

SPEAKER_01 1:15:04

Come on, law student.

SPEAKER_02 1:15:06

Well, you can't possibly know all of them. Sorry, it is what it is. Lindsay Clancy now stands trial on three counts of first degree murder only, one for each child. And I will tell you that, and I even looked up, try to pronounce this right, but you need the phonetic. I tried to look for that, and it was like, I don't want to tell you if I don't know. Um, and I don't, we haven't covered this, like my teachers haven't covered this specific, so I can't hear them say it. So, but anyways, it's not an acquittal. Um, the null prosecue is what I'm prosecute. Why prosecute what how do you say it? So you say it. Read it and tell me what it says.

SPEAKER_01 1:15:49

I would look up how to say it first.

SPEAKER_02 1:15:52

Exactly. Okay, it's not an acquittal, it's not assigned the case weekend, it's the Commonwealth choosing to proceed on the murder count alone, since the underlying contact conduct is the same act for both charge sets.

SPEAKER_00 1:16:04

Right.

SPEAKER_01 1:16:05

So my section.

SPEAKER_02 1:16:09

Okay.

SPEAKER_01 1:16:10

My section.

SPEAKER_02 1:16:10

All right, go ahead.

SPEAKER_01 1:16:12

We're gonna have a we're gonna fight later.

SPEAKER_02 1:16:14

Somebody had, I don't remember who it was with someone else. The boxing gloves up.

SPEAKER_01 1:16:17

I think Amy put the boxing gloves up. Hey Julie, thank you for the follow. We appreciate it so much.

SPEAKER_02 1:16:22

Thank you for the like.

SPEAKER_01 1:16:23

So, prosecutors they streamline charges or a charge sheet before prial or trial. And the reason for that is because they want to have a little more clarity. Uh, trial economy, trials cost a lot of money. Um, and especially murder trials. Right, and uh high profile. Understand that prosecutors work for the people, they work for the state. The state is paying them. It's money that comes from the people of the state. So we try to streamline those things. No, I say we, prosecutors try to streamline those things to so that they're in the people's good graces, even though these things take forever and they're drawn out and they cost so much money.

SPEAKER_02 1:17:02

But um, Massachusetts doesn't use the word insanity in the courtroom. The actual legal standard comes from a 1967 case, Commonwealth vs. McCau. So under the McAu standard, a defendant is not criminally responsible for a crime if at the time of the offense, as a result of mental disease or defect, she lacked the substantial capacity either to appreciate the wrongfulness of her conduct or to conform her conduct to the requirements of the law.

SPEAKER_01 1:17:35

All right, if you don't know anything about this case, we have not covered why at this point there is uh an insanity requirement or a substantial capacity requirement. We haven't covered any of that, so just to clarify, there are issues with this case regarding prescription medication, antidepressants, and all of these other things that she was taking. You're you're cutting into no no because people have no clue. There's like why chat.

SPEAKER_02 1:18:10

In the chat, really quick, does anyone know or have they heard anything about Lindsay Clancy?

SPEAKER_01 1:18:14

I'm sure Amy does because she was watching jury selection.

SPEAKER_02 1:18:17

Yes, but anybody Amy can't answer this one because I know she does. Um you've never heard of this one. Okay.

SPEAKER_01 1:18:24

Yeah, see, Matt has no idea why is there a mental case for someone who killed their kids and jumped out of a window. And now she's a paraplegic.

SPEAKER_02 1:18:37

Anyone else is gonna chime in?

SPEAKER_01 1:18:39

So that's what I'm saying, is you we have to bring that into context.

SPEAKER_02 1:18:44

And and we are, we're we're giving the backstory. Yeah, so two things most people don't know.

SPEAKER_01 1:18:50

First, thank you, Matt. I we we had that same discussion.

SPEAKER_02 1:18:56

We this was dinner. This was yeah, in case anyone really was confused on what we talk about a lot, this we're not lying. Like now, this is two different dinners, two different days. We're talking about two different cases.

SPEAKER_01 1:19:07

The reason we turn this into a podcast is because this is what we do in real life.

SPEAKER_02 1:19:11

This is yeah, this is this should be an IRL podcast, IRL broadcast, because these are the conversations we have, and we're like which then ends up one of us, usually me, going and pulling the actual Massachusetts code to say and point out to him, hey, XYZ, this is what the standard is, this is what the statute reads, and then we go from that way. So this is not us being anyway other than who we are, yeah. Like I just saying, so what most people don't understand, okay? So first it's an either or test.

SPEAKER_01 1:19:47

The defense just always be liked and post that crap.

SPEAKER_02 1:19:51

Yeah, the defense only has to show that she lacked capacity on one of the two prongs, not both. So, second, and this is the big one, once the defense gives formal notice they're raising it, which Clancy's team did in December of 2024, the burden flips. It is not on her to prove she lacked criminal responsibility, it's on the Commonwealth to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that she was criminally responsible. Right. So, in the chat, let me know does that much of what we've discussed make sense.

SPEAKER_01 1:20:23

Yeah, and Matt already said that he can't imagine uh a sane person killing their kids and then trying to kill themselves.

SPEAKER_02 1:20:33

So behind the scenes conversations, you probably, I mean, it's very similar to what it is here, but it is I'm putting on here as well that if she's acquitted on this defense, she does not go free. Okay, she would be committed to a state psychiatric hospital under GLC 12316. Right. So subject to periodic review under 17. State that you know, not guilty by reason of lack, not guilty by reason of lack of criminal responsibility is not an escape hatch.

SPEAKER_01 1:21:06

Okay, so it does not mean and but it's not a conviction of murder.

SPEAKER_02 1:21:11

And I will say, I will say, because I brought this up to Nick, and I'm I'm gonna try to pull it up and possibly see. We have one more episode this week, so maybe Friday. Um, in regard to when it's mothers killing children, the statistics on that, the ratios on on like convictions and things like that is very interesting. And I don't want to throw things out that I can't like give you a citation for right off my head, but what you've read into already. Yeah, it is it's usually again, this is not legal advice, this is not forensic science. I do not have a citation for this, but from my learnings of psychology, child development, and all of those things, criminal justice, all of those things, the topics that we've discussed in regard to this, most of the time it is some form of insanity plea. And most of them don't go to prison, they go to like a psychiatric hospital, right?

SPEAKER_01 1:22:12

But I will say from and I'm covering the this next part here.

SPEAKER_02 1:22:16

Oh, the preliminary? Uh primary.

SPEAKER_01 1:22:19

No, underneath the guardrail, underneath the primary because it it goes right along from an investigator standpoint. We when I was an investigator, when we would try to uh uh make sure our charges fit the statute of a case for this, particularly because their defense is uh on the side of insanity or uh not determined to have the wherewithal to commit that crime.

SPEAKER_02 1:22:48

Well, there's that wherewithal word again.

SPEAKER_01 1:22:51

Because that's what it falls under.

SPEAKER_02 1:22:53

Yeah, I know.

SPEAKER_01 1:22:54

What prosecutors want the investigators to do is try to build that premeditation because especially with murder, uh murder, uh capital murder requires premeditation for the statute, typically under state and federal law.

SPEAKER_02 1:23:09

So that's a new one. I was gonna say, does anybody you could discuss um because murder is you're kind of touching on it.

SPEAKER_01 1:23:17

Yeah, that's she's being charged with three separate counts, along with the strangulation and all that.

SPEAKER_02 1:23:23

But murder specifically But they dropped the strangulation.

SPEAKER_01 1:23:26

Obviously, because murder is. And it and it seems obvious that this would be the case, but a lot of people overlook the fact that yes, prosecutors and uh investigators are trying to find that premeditation within this case because the defense is so heavily on the insanity plea that she didn't have the mental capacity to do what she did. But they look for the premeditation.

SPEAKER_02 1:24:04

Is in order for it to be murdered, you have to have two what you have to have the modus operandi. No, you don't have to have a motive. You don't have to have a motive. People try to find a motive, there's usually not a motive for murder. No, you have to have the act and you have to have the intent. You have to have both. Oh, the intent, yeah. You have to have both. Yeah. So where you get the premeditation, that is your intent.

SPEAKER_01 1:24:31

Yes, yes, yes.

SPEAKER_02 1:24:33

So premeditated is what they're trying to prove. And where they're really, in my opinion, where they're really gonna struggle with this case is the fact that she sought repeatedly mental, uh psychiatric doctors. Multiple multiple different doctors. So she's got a I would say, in my my opinion, an extensive um history where she has with mental health, yes. So um what? Oh, you need another mince? Do you not have words? It's like being in kindergarten. You were talking, use your words, all right. So the the actual legal test pulled from the real 1967 opinion, not a paraphrase off the internet. This is the exact kind of thing we dig up for our episodes, okay? So when we are discussing the insanity plea, a lot of people get that wrong. Um, and I'm not trying to, again, you know, throw shade, okay? What I'm saying is we told you where that came from and what they are doing. And again, each state is different.

SPEAKER_01 1:25:45

So their laws are all written differently.

SPEAKER_02 1:25:49

Yeah, and had this case not um originated in Massachusetts, it might not be going down the way it is. And that's why I'm really excited about this specific um trial watch segment being put in, is I think that's gonna be one of those things like if we pick a different state, a different trial for each, you know, we will cover this one until it's done and then we will pick up with another trial. But in theory, you will be able to learn and see what I mean when I say that each state, so say then if you would have put Lindsay Clancy in this other state, it could be a totally different outcome process. So that's kind of what I'm trying to get across to um with that. Hopefully that makes sense. And I, you know, didn't confuse everybody, but this is one of the most contested pretrial motion battles that we've covered. Every ruling is pulled directly from the court's own docket, and again, that was the way they do their court dockets are different than Indiana, so that was a learning curve for me. I had to learn their docket system. Um, and I'm I'm not sure if it's covered tonight or if I put it in Friday's episode, but we're gonna continue to see. So the the defense actually asked the court to split the trial into two phases: one to decide if she committed the acts, and a second to decide if she was criminally responsible for those acts. So we have touched on that before. So, in in court, you're not just proving that a murder occurred or this crime occurred. Legally, you are you are connecting this specific person to this specific act that created this result. Yeah, that's the trail that you are proving. It's not just stating, well, I know it was Colonel Mustard that that did this. No, you have to say Colonel Mustard used the revolver in the library. That is how that works in court.

SPEAKER_01 1:27:49

So however, this with this case, there are two separate, two separate things going on. There is one to say This person to prove this person did what they did. There's another, however, that's separate of that, saying that they did or did not have the mental capacity to do it.

SPEAKER_02 1:28:14

And I I am going to discuss on this really briefly. I'm gonna try to just kind of read these off because I think they're important and I think some of it gets skimmed across too quickly. Um, so there was a change of venue, okay, from Plymouth to elsewhere. That was denied.

SPEAKER_01 1:28:32

A motion for a change of venue.

SPEAKER_02 1:28:33

Yes. Um, yes, sorry. Um, November 18th of 2025, okay. Um, early access to the jury was so basically early access to the list was allowed. So April 23rd, the defense's woefully inadequate process argument succeeded. And then also the witness sequestration order was allowed on June 18th of 2026, with an exception carved out for Clancy's mother, father, and sister. So then jury sequestration, a separate question in regard to that, was denied July 13th of 2026. So a defense motion in Lemini, filed and denied the same day on 713, 2026, lines up with press reporting that the defense sought to call lay witnesses about their own postpartum experien experiences, it was denied. The docket entry itself doesn't name the subject matter. So that's why we're calling it lay witness. Um, but the press sourced it's not docket confirmed, but as of right now, I haven't been able to actually pull that. I can just see. So what what I read to you basically is kind of the breakdown of what a docket looks like. I don't know if any in the chat anybody ever looked at a docket on um like one of the states uh like court websites. Has anybody I know when I talk about it, Nick knows because I'm always in the docket. I look at the docket, so he knows, but when I talk about the docket, like it the way most of it is that we'll give you like the a breakdown, not even a breakdown. It's like it gives you like a code said motion motion filed, whatever, and the date. And then some states, if you actually can click, it'll say image or it'll say exhibit, whatever. You can click on it and it'll give you the actual mine automatically downloads it. So you can, but not all states do. And and again, when we move further into trial, sometimes a lot of that stuff kind of limits because they start, you know, sealing things and they're like, no, you can have it after the trial. So say all that to say there was a lot of movement on this case. It's not just an open and shut. This is what the case was. I'm gonna read it to you. I want you to understand there was quite a bit.

SPEAKER_01 1:30:50

Well, it started two years ago.

SPEAKER_02 1:30:51

Yeah, quite a bit of stuff that's gone on, and I did pull quite a bit of it. Um, so the the Commonwealth's motion to exclude several late disclosed defense expert witness, um, it was opposed, shows no formal ruling entry in the docket. Um, but it's now press confirmed by two independent outlets, Court TV and NBC 10 Boston. The latter describing the fence as denied its bid to add undisclosed medical experts. Um, also same open status for the jury instruction. So the docket shows it's under advisement, no ruling yet. Um, so this is where we did.

SPEAKER_01 1:31:39

Who didn't?

SPEAKER_02 1:31:46

This is very similar in that there was a late defense expert witness disclosure fight right before the trial. Um, we've seen this, uh I hate to say this. We've seen this before in other high-profile Massachusetts cases. So what I will say that we have learned, and I have learned through uh we've talked about attorneys have strategy, and there also are kind of general practices that attorneys have, and it's kind of a standard in unwritten procedure kind of thing.

SPEAKER_01 1:32:29

Imagine a court and a trial being a baseball game. You're gonna put certain players in at certain times, you're also going to run certain plays depending on who's on base.

SPEAKER_02 1:32:46

I don't know. Every dollar.

SPEAKER_01 1:32:49

Exactly. What's on second? I don't know! Third base. So sorry. That's all right.

SPEAKER_02 1:33:00

That's Abbott and Costello, for all you that didn't know. You need to watch that. Yeah.

SPEAKER_01 1:33:04

No, we're gonna go over the evidentiary rulings for trial.

SPEAKER_02 1:33:07

Uh yeah, see?

SPEAKER_01 1:33:09

Exactly. Who's on third? The rule 403 teaching. This is a teaching moment for rule 403. We're talking about the evidence that's allowed in court. So, like I was talking about the baseball game.

SPEAKER_02 1:33:21

You can cover this whole section.

SPEAKER_01 1:33:22

Okay. You can do 2D one. It's easy. Um relate it to a baseball game where you're gonna run different plays, or a basketball game for that matter. You're gonna run different plays with who's out there, who's on the playing field. And that being said, a courtroom is no different. Absolutely no different. You're going to try to get stuff suppressed and allowed based on who your opponent is going to bring forward or try to that leg try to suppress.

SPEAKER_02 1:33:54

Gotta resuate.

SPEAKER_01 1:33:55

So, with this, um, photographs of the three children while alive is being allowed for the trial. The autopsy and crime scene photographs is being allowed. Now, these are all motions that had to be presented to the court.

SPEAKER_02 1:34:11

Or not necessarily motion to it's typically when like uh one side is c is is saying yes, all evidence, and the other one is saying no. Right.

SPEAKER_01 1:34:21

The defense is gonna always say no. We don't want to want that in. They want to suppress under prejudice, uh, is typically how it works because that evidence is too prejudicial to a jury, which honestly in the court uh it makes sense, but to a lay person it doesn't. Why wouldn't all the evidence be presented anyway? Because it's evidence or it's information. That's just how the court systems work, and that's the way they've done it for years and years and years, and you have to fight to get information in or get information suppressed. So, uh, because information may be fabricated, it may cover this one, it may be actual production. No. Uh a 3D model of the family's home, the Ducksbury home, to use for trials been allowed, subject to foundation, just the foundation of the the the case itself, not particularly who moved where and did what. It's just the 3D model.

SPEAKER_02 1:35:25

And also, when we say foundation, it is meaning like 2D information.

SPEAKER_01 1:35:30

So it's not gonna be like a it's not gonna have the dead bodies and where they're we're at or anything like that. It's just a 3D model.

SPEAKER_02 1:35:35

That would be that would fall under your crime scene photos. But what I mean is it's not like the Zillow 3D walkthrough where it's like, this is our living room, and this is it's got a three-bedroom, three-bath.

SPEAKER_01 1:35:45

It that's not really also Patrick Clancy's 911 call allowed to be played to the jury with limiting instruction from the judge. So all that being said, is it's a playbook, it's it's what the prosecution they want to allow all the evidence, obviously, that's gonna be beneficial to them, and the defense wants to suppress all the end uh evidence that is gonna hurt them. That's the that is just the way it works. Um, also, the defense has the ability to want to have evidence presented, you know, during the discovery process, and the prosecution obviously has the opportunity to request that it is suppressed, and a judge is there to make that determination. So ultimately, the judge has the decision on whether or not evidence is brought forward to the jury in the trial.

SPEAKER_02 1:36:44

But that's that's the 403 explanation, and now we're going to move on to what Amy had talked about. The house isn't even going to look the same. Yeah. Yeah, they're not there's a lot. In this case, like I I'll be honest, like this case to me is uh okay. Let's go ahead and we're gonna move on to what I think we've briefly discussed this and other we've talked about in other episodes. So voidir, which is basically what jury selection, okay? And we're gonna discuss why it looks different here. So voidir, which is French for to speak the truth, just means questioning prospective jurors before they're seated, routine in pretty much all cases.

SPEAKER_01 1:37:28

Trial, trial cases, yeah.

SPEAKER_02 1:37:30

Um, so individual versus panel voidir, why attorneys are probing jurors' personal views on mental illness specifically here? That's not general. Okay. So the defense submitted a proposed 48 question juror questionnaire in April of 2026, including, quote, would you be able to return a verdict of not guilty by reason of lack of criminal responsibility? End quote, defense attorney Kevin Reddington separately raised concerns that questions probing jurors' personal mental health history could be misused to strike jurors unfairly, given the stigma attached to those conditions. So that was the defense's proposed questionnaire. It's not confirmed as the final version that was actually put to the jurors. Okay. Um the court is seating a panel of 18, 12 jurors and six alternates, citing the case's exceptional emotional weight. So jury selection began Monday, July 20th, with five jurors seated that first day. On Tuesday, July 21st, Wire reports that the count at nine by the lunch break, courtroom tracking coverage that continued through the full afternoon session, put the end of day total at 12. Six women and six men, which quite honestly, I was like, wow, okay. Um, with six more, including alternates still needed. So, same day update today, jury selection continued um in front of Judge William F. Sullivan. Courtroom tracking coverage had roughly 17 of the 18 seats filled by the early afternoon recess, but I guess so. The court did not finish. Um, selection continues tomorrow, Thursday at 11 a.m.

SPEAKER_01 1:39:09

Amy, that answers your question.

SPEAKER_02 1:39:11

And I'm trying to read what I have in here.

SPEAKER_01 1:39:13

K.O. Yes, this is about Clancy.

SPEAKER_02 1:39:16

Yes.

SPEAKER_01 1:39:17

Uh if you just joined us, we're discussing um the trial procedure and we'll continue be the trial watch and be continued to discuss the uh Clancy case.

SPEAKER_02 1:39:29

I am gonna say here that there is a source discrepancy worth, um, which I did check, but the Docket's own event grid lists, I think it's Gildia, Gildia uh honorable mark for the 720-721 trial sessions, but the Dockets narrative text for both days explicitly reads before Sullivan J. So we actually yeah, I was really surprised too. Um, especially giving some of the cases. I mean, if we think back to if we think Karen Reed or if we think some of our other high-profile cases that we've watched, jury selection is a very it can be because I'm surprised that they didn't have more back and forth and we didn't throw jurors out. I mean, again, we I think we saw very a quick jury selection. So um uh I'm reading this. Oh, so uh one live detail worth noting. Um reporting from inside jury selection shows the court actually questioning prospective jurors individually at sidebar, which is functionally the individual voidier the Commonwealth asked for back in June. There's no endorsement entry in the docket confirming that request was formally allowed, but it appears to be happening in practice. So this jury is being seated as we're live and genuinely happening in real time. If you want to catch every update as it lands, follow on TikTok, subscribe on YouTube where the full replay goes up after air. And again, I want to say as we're covering this, that we are not court TV, we are not um attorneys, we are not um, I don't even know what else we are not, but we are your normal people that have some area now, and again, we'll touch on this briefly because, for example, we talked about briefly lay witnesses, and we've talked in previous episodes about expert witnesses. I don't think, sorry, I just am kind of one of those humbly type people, I don't think either of us would qualify as expert witnesses, but I think we are above a lay witness. So the lay witness is like your normal, uh, your common everyday Hey now, come down easy.

SPEAKER_01 1:41:42

I would I would be an expert witness in like firearms technology.

SPEAKER_02 1:41:46

Okay, well, yeah, okay, then fine. Then I would, if you were talking private investigations, then I could be an expert witness.

SPEAKER_01 1:41:52

Exactly.

SPEAKER_02 1:41:52

I'm just saying we use a little bit of more of our knowledge in that we have had experience or extra trainings or knowledge, learning, education.

SPEAKER_01 1:42:04

I mean, you have a criminal justice degree with a uh concentration of forensic psychology. That's more than what a lot of other people could say when it comes to that.

SPEAKER_02 1:42:12

So take that with a grain of salt. I don't want, I don't need like 500 people being like they're claiming to be this or they're claiming to be that. No, we do quite a bit of research, but if we have some areas that we struggle to understand, I know the majority of people of what they see on TV just because people will come to us and ask us.

SPEAKER_01 1:42:30

Hang on, Amy, what switch with the mics? Can you hear me now? Better?

SPEAKER_02 1:42:35

Worse?

SPEAKER_01 1:42:36

I don't know.

SPEAKER_02 1:42:37

Can you hear me now?

SPEAKER_01 1:42:38

Sorry, this is the first time we're doing this, so we're trying to get everything squared away. This is super low budget production, guys.

SPEAKER_02 1:42:46

We're normal people. I know, we're just can you still hear us though? Like everything's still working. Give us some likes. Hearts, anything. Can you are we still there? I don't know. Okay, good. Well, if you can hear, that's great. I mean, and you can see us, and we're not like okay.

SPEAKER_01 1:43:07

We got some likes there. Yeah. 29,000, we're almost to 30,000. That's crazy. Thank you, thank you, thank you.

SPEAKER_02 1:43:15

We appreciate it. And again, give us some follow, share, because I feel like this is genuine. Like, we try to be as down to earth as we can. And try to we we want you to ask us questions. We want you to understand because genuine life, I feel like, in all honesty, when people watch trials and cases in real time, they need to understand that it could be any one of them or their loved ones. Yeah, and they should have a general understanding of our our court systems, our criminal justice systems. I think it's a civic responsibility, a civil duty. So that's kind of where we are. And hopefully that will end help uh lessen the confusion.

unknown 1:43:58

Yep.

SPEAKER_01 1:43:58

All right, so with this case, with this trial, strip away procedure, and this is the real fight. The Commonwealth's theor theory is that Clancy researched over multiple days how to do this and timed her husband's errands precisely, a premeditation that cuts hard against a psychotic break claim. The defense theory is that she spent months trying to get help, hospitalizations, medications, crisis calls, and it was a grip of a rare severe condition that was never properly treated. That's essentially the sides that we're seeing here. You can go ahead and cover the next the medication and treatment uh timeline courses from a civil wrongful death complaint filed by Patrick Clam Clancy against her providers. His legal terms characterization.

SPEAKER_02 1:45:04

That's the second word.

SPEAKER_01 1:45:07

I can't I can't read.

SPEAKER_02 1:45:08

I know. Do I need to bring it closer?

SPEAKER_01 1:45:10

Yeah, it's it's so far away.

SPEAKER_02 1:45:11

I you're making fun of me now. I really can't read far away. You're mean.

SPEAKER_01 1:45:16

So his legal teams characterization. They filed a case, all four defendants have where is that?

SPEAKER_00 1:45:26

Okay.

SPEAKER_01 1:45:26

So there's four defendants bec the defendants of that civil case are the medical providers and all of that. Because he filed a suit against the medical providers claiming that there was a wrongful death of his children because they they didn't fix her.

SPEAKER_02 1:45:47

Right. And I will say, because again, I uh this is a little unfair. Now, warning, I did give him warning that we were talking, and this wasn't going to be an ongoing segment, so take that as you will. But I will say that in in terms of this case, Lindsay has two. She has her criminal case, and she also has her own civil case.

SPEAKER_01 1:46:08

Oh, we're not talking about that yet. We're getting ready to do that.

SPEAKER_02 1:46:11

You're confusing people.

SPEAKER_01 1:46:12

No, I'm just I clearly said filed by Patrick Clancy.

SPEAKER_02 1:46:17

Patrick has a civil, Lindsay has a civil, and then she also has her criminal case.

SPEAKER_01 1:46:21

You're skipping ahead.

SPEAKER_02 1:46:22

I'm not skipping ahead, I'm just trying to clarify. So, anyways, they have gone after those medical professions or establishments that provided care leading up to the events that took place that warranted the criminal investigation.

SPEAKER_01 1:46:39

But that no courts ruled on whether these allegations everything is very much still moving through the system. So yeah, those civil claims are still out there, they have not been ruled on.

SPEAKER_02 1:46:49

Correct. So, according to that civil complaint, and this is Patrick's, I believe, is where we were discussing right now. Clancy told her provider she was what hearing what she described as a compelling, unrecognizable male voice telling her, in her words, this is your last chance, and that she had to take her children with her. Courtroom reporting this week describes her account in similar terms: a voice telling her, This is your last chance, kill the children so you can kill yourself. So this is Clancy's own reported account of her mental state, not a neutral fact. Frame, okay, this is like a he said she said according to her account.

SPEAKER_01 1:47:25

Okay, so and again, and Amy's saying she feels it would be hard to rule on those until hers is over.

SPEAKER_02 1:47:34

I I'm telling you, when I I and again, like I said, I I Massachusetts system was a little bit different because, like in their system, so they each have there's three different case numbers, and so when you go in and you pull the case number, so for instance, like when you're looking at Patrick's, it's all of the people that are a party to it, so that's the line. Like it's one, they all have the same case number, but they all get like a drop down, and it's like all right.

SPEAKER_01 1:48:01

This is this is my opinion, and I'm gonna throw this in there real quick. There's a reason for the, and we're getting ready to talk about Lindsay's civil suit because she has a silver suit of her own. A silver suit? Yes, silver of her own on this, and the reason being is and that was brought on by her defense attorneys, obviously, because think about it this way if you can prove civilly, or you can have it found by a court civilly, even though you're already being tried for murder, that you were wrongfully treated under a certain medical condition during uh for with medical providers and all that, if you can prove that in a court, that helps you in a criminal court, it's more evidence to a criminal court and can be brought forward saying, hey, it was already found that there was negligence or whatever it may have been, whatever they try to prove in the civil case, even though it's a whole nother case, it has to pertain to her her her mindset at the time, which is a premeditation factor when it comes to murder. Now, are are we saying that manslaughter's off the table or secondary murder, all that stuff?

SPEAKER_02 1:49:28

No, but murder, it could potentially bring that back to we have to have intent, and there has to be the act.

SPEAKER_01 1:49:36

So think about it that way. You know, it it is a tactic, it is a play that the defense is playing. It's uh in this game.

SPEAKER_02 1:49:47

His Nick's opinion.

SPEAKER_01 1:49:49

Yeah, that's again, but think about it. It makes logical sense for an attorney to do that. The thing is, it could backfire. Because It could be this civil case could be drawn out long after the criminal case.

SPEAKER_02 1:50:05

I will say, if you if you actually listen to the podcast, The Case Walker Chronicles, we have discussed, say, for instance, when we discussed Jill Behrman, and we talked about how they're they the family was not getting any resolution from the criminal case, then they pursued the civil side of things. So I'm not saying it's uncommon to have the civil and criminal uh running alongside or to counteract what the other one does or whatever, but I will say in theory, once there is some kind of proof in the court system, it helps it helps one or both, or hurts. Yes. So in theory, if we are saying that, you know, this civil case, there is a finding that is ruled as truth, then that could potentially change something in the criminal, or vice versa. So there is also a little Go ahead. There is a little um uneasiness, I think, that could come about when you're doing this. And I'm not comfortable claiming that this is what that I could actually pull the dates when all this was filed, but it just we again our analysis, not not legal advice. So, and I actually am gonna tell you right here. So on January 22nd of 2026, Lindsay Clancy filed her own medical malpractice suit in Norfolk Superior Court. Now, if you remember when we went back to the very beginning, we talked about which county is the criminal case in. Do you remember? This is a quiz.

SPEAKER_01 1:51:52

Uh that one's in Norfolk County. No, I don't remember.

SPEAKER_02 1:51:57

Plymouth. Her criminal is in Plymouth, and her civil is in Norfolk. Specifically assigned to the same judge as Patrick's case. Michael Doolin. So her complaint names the same four defendants Patrick sued Doctors, Dr. Tufts, Nurse Jolotta, Astor Mental Health, and South Shore Health System, plus seven more. McLean Hospital, Women and Inference Hospital of Rhode Island, and five individually named providers, Dr. Aliyah Goodhart, Dr. Zabida Diaz, Dr. Elizabeth Modva, nurse practitioner Julie Paul, and licensed mental health counselor Letitia Dukes. So Lindsay's own complaint describes a woman who did everything the textbook says to do. She recognized something was wrong, sought psychiatric care on her own initiative, went to emergency rooms, called the suicide hotline, and told her providers each time her symptoms were getting worse. Her complaint alleges her care was, in its own words, significantly complicated by polypharmacy and the involvement of multiple prescribers, which in effect obscured an accurate diagnosis and appropriate intervention and treatment. At Women's and Infants Hospital in December of 2022, her own depression and anxiety screening scores were severe. And the complaint alleges the attending psychiatrist there concluded she had no postpartum depression and no bipolar disorder, in part because that psychiatrist never asked about her earlier hypomanic episode after her second child's birth. And it's a little when it comes to some of these claims, things are not necessarily she filed it in Norfolk County.

SPEAKER_01 1:54:18

She's from Plymouth County.

SPEAKER_02 1:54:21

I'm just saying there's no.

SPEAKER_01 1:54:22

No, yeah, I know.

SPEAKER_02 1:54:24

So anyway, one more thing flagged for a future episode, not tonight. This docket shows a stipulation referencing an offer of proof and a tribunal. That's Massachusetts Mandatory Medical My Practice Tribunal under GLC 23160B, a single Superior Court justice, a Massachusetts licensed physician, and an attorney reviewing whether the plaintiff's offer of proof raises a legitimate question of liability appropriate for judicial inquiry, or whether it's merely an unfortunate medical result. Lindsay's offer of proof was filed July 8th, 2026. No tribunal ruling yet. Also worth flagging for the future episode: the answer filed by three of the defendants, Joel A Paul and South Shore Health, shows this complaint runs 55 separate counts. Essentially, the same handful of claims repeated once per defendant. Two of their affirmative defenses are genuinely teachable. First, comparative negligence under GL 231B. Second, and this one tends to surprise people, South Shore Health is invoking GL23185K, Massachusetts charitable immunity statute, arguing that as a nonprofit, any recovery against it is statutorily capped regardless of what a jury finds.

SPEAKER_01 1:55:50

This woman had sought mental health treatment. She noticed, or they, as a married couple, noticed a problem and wanted to uh fix it. Isn't that what everybody does?

SPEAKER_02 1:56:10

I will say what what draws me to this more, um, and because mental health has such a stigma around it, and anyone that has followed me for any length of time knows obviously that is a huge thing for me. Um, I huge mental health advocate, seeking help, all of those things. But she was a nurse, and I'm not saying that you know, like nurses are above somebody else, but considering what you was a labor and delivery nurse, but you learn and like when you think of postpartum depression, which is its own thing, and they are actually talking about um postpartum psychosis, so that's it's a whole other thing, but in regards to just just say mental health, because nurses they all go through, and I'm I'm drawing a blank on the names. Um it's not a cohort, it it's like units, so it's they do like labor and delivery, same with doctors. They go through, you know, they have um emergency, they have all these different areas that they have to have a general understanding. So she does have a lot of people.

SPEAKER_01 1:57:11

Amy, you're exact you're exactly right. She was super versed in all the signs.

SPEAKER_02 1:57:14

Yeah, I mean, like, so to me, I think that speaks even more highly because there's a lot of times where people that are just not nurses or doctors, or they don't have, you know, even mental health therapists or anything like that, they don't have that um extra knowledge. They may have a different um understanding of the signs, or you know, but when to me, someone who is very well aware of it, now again, there's that whole other aspect of mental health where you don't want to have anything wrong with you, so you kind of suppress it. From my understanding so far, it seems like that was not the case. No, but I'm I'm trying to remain um open and and watch things play out because I don't want them, I don't think that's I don't think I have to be very careful, but I don't think you can just say, well, he had stuff going on mentally, so that's why this occurred and that makes it okay, or whatever. No, it doesn't.

SPEAKER_01 1:58:14

No, it doesn't no, absolutely not.

SPEAKER_02 1:58:15

I don't think that that's what we're trying to say. I'm just saying that I don't think it's a cut and dry.

SPEAKER_01 1:58:21

Not at all. I don't think so either.

SPEAKER_02 1:58:23

I think I think it'll continue. And what is sad is that this was the conclusion.

SPEAKER_01 1:58:30

That was the resolution that it it appears that that was her resolution was to end the life of her children and her own. Um, and she was successful on three parts of that, not the fourth.

SPEAKER_02 1:58:45

I I just I personally think this is a very devastating case. And I I don't I know again, I put we put ourselves out there for a lot of things, obviously, but it's like you know, I I think of it in terms of uh of that as a human, though.

SPEAKER_01 1:59:02

Four no Amy, not three, four, five, multiple, multiple. Yeah, because you look at the look at the because everyone who was affected, you know, lost lost grandkids, lost cousins, maybe, you know, all of this. It's it's terrible, it's awful, and it it comes to full circle to the mental health issue that is going on in this country, on top of the ability to get adequate health care and and be treated, you know, well, because I again I don't I don't think that we really um there's still so much that is unknown about mental health, obviously, and it is ever evolving and ever changing.

SPEAKER_02 1:59:43

And I understand that there are doctors that have specialties in certain areas, but again, there are we just need to have a bigger conversation about mental health, and people need to not be so upset, like they need to be willing to talk about it.

SPEAKER_01 1:59:58

It's not let's move on to our clothes because your phone is gonna die. Is the particulars for tonight?

SPEAKER_02 2:00:06

Headlines in, details begin. We're back Friday at 9 Eastern. Our opinion, our analysis, not legal advice. Thank you for walking the cases with us, and we hope to see you Friday at nine. Love you guys.